[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:38:10 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Terry Rudd <terry.rudd@....com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 1/8] locking/drm: Kill mutex trickery
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:22:02PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Once all your locking rework is assembled it might be good to have a
> topic branch I could pull in. Both for testing and to handle conflicts
> before it goes boom in the merge window ;-) Not necessary ofc, but I
> think it'd be useful.
Everything except the trylock_recursive is already in tip/locking/core.
Ingo, is that all there is in that branch?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists